Christ Centered Gamer

And for the sake of your amusement and mental exercise, I'd like to offer you a link that may interest you.

http://conclusiveproofofgod.com/

In short, it's a book that supposedly contains scientific, mathematical, and logical proof for the existance of God. I'd like to see of what you make of it (although I should mention that the website feels a bit like a sales pitch).

Nay.
I really like the idea and I'd prefer to keep on existing post-death than ceasing to exist, but there is not only insufficient evidence, but no evidence. It's possible, but it's not worth believing in something you don't have evidence for.

It's probably not necessary for me to say, but things that I consider evidence differs starkly at points from what most people on this board consider as evidence.

And, well, I'm not going to be spending my money on that book. Now, I have seen these logic and mathematical proofs of God, but I've all found them incredibly wanting.

I just...do we need scientific evidence that there is a God? Isn't the point to acknowledge that we can't explain everything, so there must be a higher being?

Nate DaZombie wrote:I just...do we need scientific evidence that there is a God? Isn't the point to acknowledge that we can't explain everything, so there must be a higher being?

I get your premise, but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that because we don't understand everything there must be a higher being.

I do agree that science isn't about God. It's about observing the natural world.

I do agree that science isn't about God. It's about observing the natural world.

You know, I just saw the film Life of Pi and it was really freaking timely for where I am personally in life, as it addressed the nature of faith and reason and holy cow it was so good and I recommend that you all see it. Anyway, my point is that there's a scene where the father is trying to teach his son reason and the mother is trying to teach him faith, and the mother says a line that I really like (paraphrased):

"Your father is right. Religion cannot teach us about what is out there, but science cannot teach us about what is inside."

That's a pretty black and white definition of things, but I love the idea and the potential synthesis of the two. Granted, this is a movie that is far more along my belief system which is what people tend to view as the wishy-washy "God is in all religions and all things" ideology. Regardless, it's an intriguing idea, and just go see the movie because it's gorgeous and and I am deeply in love with it

I've heard good things about that film, CK. I may have to check it out myself.

Here's an analogy that I've been kicking around for a while. How do you describe to a blind man what the color red looks like? Or how would you describe to a deaf person the sound of middle-C? Or, how can a nested trigonometry function help to explain the writings of James Joyce? Without some central frame of reference, this would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

The same goes for trying to apply scientific rationale and thinking to spiritual matters. Science can do a fantastic job with explaining the natural world. But it isn't the right language to explain the existence of God. Likewise with trying to use the scriptures or the words of spiritual authorities to define the nature of pi or why comets travel in parabolas around the sun. There's nothing wrong with either science or faith, really. But trying to use one to explain or justify the other will likely lead only to confusion and misunderstandings.

Sstavix wrote:The same goes for trying to apply scientific rationale and thinking to spiritual matters. . .

You’re preaching classical religion vs science thinking here (i.e., they are “non-overlapping magisteria”). The real interesting questions are the ones that seem to overlap. Like when did the universe begin to exist as we know it? What is the origin of life? In these questions, which we discuss frequently here, religion from hardline literalists has been overthrown by some of the most robust scientific results ever discovered. But, what I’d be really interested in discussing (maybe not in this thread) is what exactly is spiritual? Is there some magical realm which we cannot interact with floating about? Or, does the scripture, constricted by cultural linguistics (a hot topic in theology these days), mean something which has material origins when describing the spiritual? For example, I don’t believe in satan and demons. I think that the satan is merely a personification of the instincts and emotions that tempt us (in a real neurochemical-driven manner) to live un-harmoniously.

Since this thread is really about Arch’s newfound agnosticism, I’m wondering Arch, if you still consider Jesus, whether fictional or true or inbetween, to have taught about anything useful? To my best understanding Jesus seemed to go about within culture, not living entirely eccentric, but instead correcting the wrongs which had developed and discretely helping people. I’m wondering if Jesus really intended to bring about doctrine at all. Or, is this entirely manmade constructs with explanatory intention (quenching the Modernist’s thirst) or to attempt to give a formal structure around something that is really simpler and requires little structure. This is important because if you have no doctrine, you need no proofs and only need to focus on morality, ethics, altruism, etc. to understand our true human nature.

First off: you may have just made an amazing sales pitch, CK. Life of Pi it is.

And another serious question yet:

How much of the Bible (historical events, God speaking to people aside, do you think is fiction?

ArcticFox wrote:Agnosticism has less to do with the level of certainty, and more to do with definition.

In other words, an agnostic believes in Deity, but not according to any particular religion or definition.

The only way I've ever heard the word "agnosticism" used in common parlance is a professed lack of knowledge on whether a God exists. I suppose its possible to say someone is agnostic if they believe a God exists, but they don't know which God. Either way, uncertainty is the core of agnosticism. The more uncertain a person is, the more agnostic a person is. The highest level of uncertainty is the conclusion that alternatives are equally likely to be true. I was just curious how far away from that level of uncertainty a person can get before that person that person is no longer agnostic.

ArcticFox wrote:Agnostic: Someone who only uses one tool in the figuring-things-out toolbox, but at least uses it correctly.

I think what you're comparing to a single tool is actually more like an entire toolbox. Logic, the scientific method, mathematics, these are different tools in a tool box full of tools designed to determine what is actually true. I think ArchAngel had a wonderful answer about other tools like faith and prayer: they are tools designed for a different job. That job is to sustain beliefs that are comforting or inspiring, qualities with no bearing on likelihood of truth.

Deepfreeze32 wrote: I was watching a Penn Jillette video where he was talking about agnosticism as opposed to atheism. He said "Agnosticism and atheism are answers to different questions. Agnosticism is answering the question of 'Is there a God?' <He went on to say that saying anything other than 'I don't know' is a wrong answer>. Atheism answers the question of 'Do you believe in God?'

Actually, I don't really find that distinction very helpful. You can separate "Is there X" and "do you believe in X" when talking about anything, not just God. The only way I can make sense of those even being different questions is if the first is asking whether you have absolute certainty in X and if the second is asking whether you think X is more likely than not. Of course, it is impossible to be strictly 100% sure of anything. There's always a small chance, maybe a microscopic chance but the chance is still there, that we are all plugged into the Matrix and none of what we think is real exists. The answer to the first question would always have to be "I don't know" for mature, critical thinkers, so it's almost a trivial question to ask. If agnosticism is defined as saying "I don't know" to the first question, then every remotely reasonable person is agnostic about all things, religious or otherwise. It renders the word meaningless because it applies to too much. Therefore, I think in order for agnosticism to be a meaningful concept it must refer to a certain level of uncertainty one has in their answer to the second question.

brandon1984 wrote:I guess IMO the evidence is somewhere between being insufficient and “too good to be true” which gives it a certain realness. On corroborations there may be a good explanation as to why there are less than we’d want. It’s because anyone who documented the events added them to scripture and later there input became canonized text. There weren’t news reporters from distant lands recording the event and commenting on it in their newspaper’s “world” section. Everything we get in the gospels is from the Associated Press, basically everything that was there and recording. I hope that’s clearer than murky water (as I reread it it’s pretty murky).

You're narrative seems to be that any documentation of the events was later canonized. I question your sense of causation. In truth, the canonized texts are perceived as documentation of the events because they were canonized. I know that you know that there is broad agreement among critical scholars that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses and they drew from a common pool of written sources that predated them. So I know you know that there is a strong likelihood that it is not the case that scripture contains a comprehensive library of every contemporary writing that documented Jesus. Nor is it a random, representative sample of those writings. All we have are secondary sources handpicked among a number of sources to support the theological bent of the Christian church at the time of canonization. Unfortunately, anything that wasn't chosen was not preserved for posterity precisely because they were not canonized, but we know they exist based on textual criticism of the secondary gospel writings that were preserved (plus actual non-canonical gospels like the Gospel of Thomas still exist).

The evidence that you are saying has a "certain realness" is evidence with the following characteristics:

1) the evidence only comprises secondary sources
2) it was only a segment of the contemporary evidence;
3) it was consciously hand-selected for preservation among that wider body of evidence;
4) the selection took place decades or a century or more after the event documented occurred; and
5) the selection was made by an interested party

You're saying that the form the early church took, as disclosed by evidence that this same church hand selected years after the fact, is consistent with the church's religion being true. But of course the church would choose writings to canonize that flatter itself. As a scientist you should know that evidence hand selected by an interested party is not evidence at all.

Maybe I am getting this wrong and inadvertently "straw-manning" you. I apologize if that is the case. But if I am accurately representing your view on this then I have to say that this is nowhere in the spectrum between "insufficient evidence" and "too good to be true." It is actually a highly questionable interpretation of evidence that is nearly valueless to begin with. Because there is only valueless evidence of Jesus's resurrection and we know from inductive reasoning that resurrections do not occur in nature, we might generously—very generously—put Jesus's resurrection in the spectrum between "there is insufficient evidence" and "there is positive evidence sufficient to conclude that it did not occur."

Truthseeker wrote:

ArcticFox wrote:Agnostic: Someone who only uses one tool in the figuring-things-out toolbox, but at least uses it correctly.

I think what you're comparing to a single tool is actually more like an entire toolbox. Logic, the scientific method, mathematics, these are different tools in a tool box full of tools designed to determine what is actually true. I think ArchAngel had a wonderful answer about other tools like faith and prayer: they are tools designed for a different job. That job is to sustain beliefs that are comforting or inspiring, qualities with no bearing on likelihood of truth.

The job is to understand the Universe as a whole. You keep talking about truth in a very narrow and limited way, and I haven't yet been able to tell if that's how you see it, which leads you to believe that incomplete toolbox is adequate to the task, or whether you're artificially narrowing your definition of truth in order to accommodate a desire to use only those few tools.

Truthseeker wrote:You're narrative seems to be that any documentation of the events was later canonized. I question your sense of causation. In truth, the canonized texts are perceived as documentation of the events because they were canonized.

When I referred to canonization I was talking about the council of Nicaea in the fourth century. I see you are referring to the broader concept of canonization of oral traditions and scriptures at or near Jesus’ time. I should have specified because I think the common meaning is what you refer to.

Truthseeker wrote:I know that you know that there is broad agreement among critical scholars that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses and they drew from a common pool of written sources that predated them. So I know you know that there is a strong likelihood that it is not the case that scripture contains a comprehensive library of every contemporary writing that documented Jesus. Nor is it a random, representative sample of those writings. All we have are secondary sources handpicked among a number of sources to support the theological bent of the Christian church at the time of canonization.

I meant to say that there are not many extrabiblical corroborations because 1) this was pre-bible times and the corroborations would have been used to edit pre-existing text (i.e., Q source) and 2) there was no secular purpose to record Jesus' story aside from documenting history (i.e., Josephus). I agree with you that what we ended up with is not likely a comprehensive library. I’m simply pointing out a possible explanation for why there aren’t as many outside corroborations.

And, I think the corroborations that were used to edit the pre-existing texts do not have to have any sort of theological agenda. To say this may be a misunderstanding of the nascent church. As a diverse group of cultures they probably not able to form common theological agendas. They were not operating under the same evangelical model you see today (more on this below). Additionally, the first century environment was less than nurturing to newly formed religions. We know that Christians were persecuted often on many different levels and they had to compete with a plethora of longstanding religions including official state religions. Thus, making the formation of a theological agenda of any kind would have been difficult.

I was about to break something on the forum, but I’ll put some of it here since it’s so relevant. There is a strong argument that the early Christian church was very alien to what we consider a Christian church because they did not find their doctrine in cognitive arguments or experiences (praise services, rites). They found their doctrine in the Christian culture and language. This is the cultural-linguistic model of doctrine, a new concept for me. Supposedly, the pagans were attracted to Christianity because of its culture, not because they were persuaded by evangelical arguments. Anyway, I need to read more about this because it has massive implications for us who are agnostic or near-agnostic. I just wanted to point this out because it makes it less likely for the early church to need a theological agenda. Certainly, by the time of Constantine’s the church would have had a theological agenda.

Truthseeker wrote:Maybe I am getting this wrong and inadvertently "straw-manning" you. I apologize if that is the case. But if I am accurately representing your view on this then I have to say that this is nowhere in the spectrum between "insufficient evidence" and "too good to be true." It is actually a highly questionable interpretation of evidence that is nearly valueless to begin with. Because there is only valueless evidence of Jesus's resurrection and we know from inductive reasoning that resurrections do not occur in nature, we might generously—very generously—put Jesus's resurrection in the spectrum between "there is insufficient evidence" and "there is positive evidence sufficient to conclude that it did not occur."

You're certainly not strawmanning me. I think what I had originally said just wasn't expounded upon and within the proper context. And I hope I'm being sober about this because I realize this explanation is not a perfect excuse for lack of corroborations. Again, I'd have to say that if history can at all "prove" the supernatural that this account has what I called a "certain realness" to it because it appears to be evidential but not so strong that it appears entirely made up. By today's standards the evidence would be counted as negligible as you say, but as an ancient document couldn't it at least be very poor positive evidence? I wonder, would a "real" encounter with the supernatural in the first century have been documented differently?

EDIT: cleaned up a few sentences and spelling.
EDIT2: cleaned up some more terrible writting!

Nate DaZombie wrote:I just...do we need scientific evidence that there is a God? Isn't the point to acknowledge that we can't explain everything, so there must be a higher being?

Unfortunately, that's an argument from ignorance fallacy. Besides the fact that so much of the phenomena that we considered to be of a deity has turned out to be perfectly explainable by natural causes, lack of evidence is no evidence for the existence of anything. It's a big, dark, gaping hole and we don't know what's in it. It's better to be honest and say we don't know than to assume based on what we want to believe.
This being said, Bruce is right. Science isn't about God, it's a systematic procedure for understanding the natural world. Reason, however, should still be applicable.

Sstavix wrote:The same goes for trying to apply scientific rationale and thinking to spiritual matters. Science can do a fantastic job with explaining the natural world. But it isn't the right language to explain the existence of God. Likewise with trying to use the scriptures or the words of spiritual authorities to define the nature of pi or why comets travel in parabolas around the sun. There's nothing wrong with either science or faith, really. But trying to use one to explain or justify the other will likely lead only to confusion and misunderstandings.

The thing is, I never mentioned using science to explain the existence of God. There is no theory or hypothesis I'm banding about. I'm simply asking for logic and reason.

Just like Arctic's reference to the "toolbox," I have to ask, what makes faith or religion even valid? How is hoping that the answer you either grew up in or came to via an emotional or "spiritual" experience valid? It's a shot in the dark. It really hardly sounds like a tool. The whole world sees to have their own and when only one can be right, it really does come off as a poor tool for any job. If anything, it's a repository of knowledge and wisdom from the ancients, whether it's good or bad (and accepting it unquestionably provides no way of discerning).
We can't just assume that faith and religion is automatically a tool for understanding that we're just leaving out. It has to prove it's usefulness. How can we know it's reliable or accurate? And what about the other "tools" out there? Are we going to start referring to seances and tarot card readings as tools? Astrology? Psychic mediums? Nobody can just lay a claim and say they have a tool of understanding. All of these I mentioned are systematically ruled out because they are completely unreliable. Religion still needs to show itself as a reliable method for understanding. And historically, I just don't see it, and that's why I'm agnostic.

Now, CK brought up the notion that religion is a tool not for understanding the outside world, but oneself. And perhaps this is true, and I will not deny that there are good lessons taught in religion. But there are poor lessons that deceive people away from who they are. Does teaching that women must remained completely covered in the presence of men facilitate a positive and accurate self-awareness for women? Or that it's an abomination in the eyes of God to be with the one you love if you happen to be of the same sex? (think if you were wrong on this, what it is being inflicted on others). How do we discern from the good teachings from the poor. Religion would say don't, accept it all. This doesn't sound like a tool at for understanding. It's an acceptance of knowledge from past generations that have less of an ability to understand both the natural world and the human mind than we do.
But even this is looking religion like a collection of teachings, which it does have, but it also makes some very strong claims about what is real and what is not, and these claims are almost either unprovable or unfalsifiable. Muslims believe that Allah is god and Muhammad is his prophet. Now, for me, this is completely and demonstrably false and any basis of knowledge based on this sham of a foundation I find very suspect to being wholly unreliable. I am sure there probably are some good teachings in Islam but I would not find any of that reason to adhere to it in any degree. And I think most of you can agree with me on this.

brandon1984 wrote:Since this thread is really about Arch’s newfound agnosticism, I’m wondering Arch, if you still consider Jesus, whether fictional or true or inbetween, to have taught about anything useful? To my best understanding Jesus seemed to go about within culture, not living entirely eccentric, but instead correcting the wrongs which had developed and discretely helping people. I’m wondering if Jesus really intended to bring about doctrine at all. Or, is this entirely manmade constructs with explanatory intention (quenching the Modernist’s thirst) or to attempt to give a formal structure around something that is really simpler and requires little structure. This is important because if you have no doctrine, you need no proofs and only need to focus on morality, ethics, altruism, etc. to understand our true human nature.

While being agnostic/atheist, I clearly don't think Jesus is the son of God, I do personally think he's an actual historical figure who taught many good things. Now, I'm unsure how much he actually said or not, since the writings were made much after the events, but by what we see, the teachings were positive and had much wisdom. I do very much like the personage of Jesus. He unseated religious elitism and promoted love over literalism. I can see no religion lay claim to a better figure. Although, Athena's pretty awesome...

ScotchRobbins wrote:How much of the Bible (historical events, God speaking to people aside, do you think is fiction?

Hard to quantify, really. Being that I don't believe in a God, you can say I'm pretty skeptical about the supernatural portions, but I think much of the historical writings are somewhat true. Unfortunately, most of what I know about those events were from the Bible or Bible teachings and not much else, so I can't go into detail what is accurate or what it is not, so I proceed with caution and skepticism as I learn more.

CountKrazy wrote:

I do agree that science isn't about God. It's about observing the natural world.

You know, I just saw the film Life of Pi and it was really freaking timely for where I am personally in life, as it addressed the nature of faith and reason and holy cow it was so good and I recommend that you all see it. Anyway, my point is that there's a scene where the father is trying to teach his son reason and the mother is trying to teach him faith, and the mother says a line that I really like (paraphrased):

"Your father is right. Religion cannot teach us about what is out there, but science cannot teach us about what is inside."

That's a pretty black and white definition of things, but I love the idea and the potential synthesis of the two. Granted, this is a movie that is far more along my belief system which is what people tend to view as the wishy-washy "God is in all religions and all things" ideology. Regardless, it's an intriguing idea, and just go see the movie because it's gorgeous and and I am deeply in love with it

I've heard the same sentiment phrased a bit differently:

Science can tell you how. It cannot tell you why.

This is true. Science is about observing and understanding phenomena. As for the why, since our human minds crave causality and meaning, it's up to us to make it. I don't see why reason isn't still the best "tool" for the job.

If you couldn't tell by now, I view Reason as the highest esteemed function of our brains. Feelings and emotions are a much baser level, more on par with the animals. It's our ability to think that sets us apart and makes us the most awesome species on this planet.

ArchAngel wrote:This is true. Science is about observing and understanding phenomena. As for the why, since our human minds crave causality and meaning, it's up to us to make it. I don't see why reason isn't still the best "tool" for the job.

If you couldn't tell by now, I view Reason as the highest esteemed function of our brains. Feelings and emotions are a much baser level, more on par with the animals. It's our ability to think that sets us apart and makes us the most awesome species on this planet.

I understand what you're saying... but I'm not sure if I entirely agree.

Reason is an amazing ability, but recall that eugenics sounded very reasonable to far too many people in the early 20th century. Reason untempered by "baser" emotions like empathy and compassion can walk you into genocide.

Men are not bipedal abacuses.